Male domination bdsm chat rooms
#wichsvorlage #schnecke #muschi #pussy #shaved #hairless #tinytits #tits #perfecttits #smalltits #nicetits #flatchest #beautifulslit #blonde
Indeed you could not be more mistaken if you worked very hard to get it all wrong.
-The state should reserve the right to criminalize homosexual behavior.
Rod has explicitly said he does not advocate that.
-Individuals, some companies and some institutions should be permitted to discriminate against LGBT people in housing, employment etc.
In specific circumstances, yes, as a broad generality, no. Rod draws some lines a little differently than I would.
-Same sex marriage should be illegal.
The choice of words is inaccurate. If “same sex marriage” were ILLEGAL, there would have to be a condition or status or set of actions that constitute “same sex marriage” that could be punished by law. Rod does not believe that the term, concept, bonds, of “marriage” can in any meaningful sense apply to two people of the same sex. It has a specific meaning, and that isn’t it. That said, he does not oppose civil statutory arrangements so that same sex couples can share property, visit each other in the hospital, etc.
-Same sex couple should not be permitted to adopt children or be foster parents.
Rod may have said that he believes adoption should give first priority to married heterosexual couples.
-LGBT people should not be permitted to serve in the Military.
You are conflating L, G, B, and T, which are four different things. Rod has said rather different things about each of them. So have a lot of other people here.
-Homosexual desire is a mental disorder.
The adjective “mental” is misplaced. Rod may well believe that homosexual desire is intrinsically disordered, in the sense that to him sexual hormones and desires have a transcendent purpose not served by homosexual passions.
So what? He can believe whatever he wants about that, and people who do not share his faith can do whatever they think best.
But when it got to gender, it had one of those “I identify (or mostly identify) as…” constructions followed by a rather long list of gender choices. You couldn’t skip the question and still take part in the survey, so I deleted mine instead of participating.
I recently was dialed by an automated telephone political survey. The second question asked if I consider myself “libertarian, very liberal, somewhat liberal, moderate, somewhat conservative, or very conservative.” I hit the zero button trying to get a live human being to explain that I am a libertarian socialist who despises liberals and recites the Nicene Creed every Sunday, but the software just kept repeating the question, so I hung up.
[NFR: I do believe the state has the right to criminalize homosexual behavior, though I believe that the state generally should not do that. Justice Scalia pointed out in his Lawrence dissent that the decision effectively invalidates all morals laws. — RD]
So again I wonder what’s the bottom line here? Are conservative Christians who refuse on principle to express support for gays and other previously scorned minorities supposed to believe they’re becoming a persecuted minority because a lot of people, including employers, may scorn them for refusing their support? Isn’t that just the way this kind of social change works? People finally see how cruel it was to scorn certain other people and then set about making it a rule that no one may do so in the future? They’ll naturally look down on those who continue the old behavior. Of course, that doesn’t give them the right to act unjustly toward anybody. Laws should provide equal protection. But then, all those anti-discrimination statutes that have been extended to cover sexual minorities also mention religion as well. In other words, Christians ARE themselves supposed to be protected from discrimination. We have the same laws on our side others have on theirs. That didn’t used to be true for the LGBT community. Now the laws protect — or at least are supposed to protect — both them and us.
RD: “I do believe the state has the right to criminalize homosexual behavior, though I believe that the state generally should not do that…”
I think it would be good if you’d go into your thinking on that in a little more depth. Why such a right, and why shouldn’t it be invoked?
[NFR: Because as Scalia said, if the state doesn’t have the right in principle to regulate morals, there would be no morals laws (e.g., against prostitution). But just because something is immoral doesn’t mean it should also be illegal. — RD]
Brad G and Siarlys Jenkins:
I’m sure that LGBT folks would find the points I alluded to much more palatable when nuanced as you have. In this light, their activism does seem extreme…;)
The state should reserve the right to criminalize homosexual behavior.
Generally speaking, the state has the right to prosecute public display of immorality. The history of sodomy laws in the West, however, shows that they were seldom applied and their use was more to shame political enemies with false accusations than anything else.
#gay #gaycocksucking #wetcock #gayblowjob